Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[doug emcesd.com]

Hi Brent and the group. I agree as long as we stay under 8 KV.

For 20 kV discharge, I would use a (easy to build) filter that slows the rise 
to that more like a real discharge. Nice repeatable contact discharge that more 
closely resembles reality.

Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org

From: Brent DeWitt 
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:54:22 PM
To: doug emcesd.com ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

Subject: Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

I'll jump in quickly to state my opinion:

Contact discharge does not represent any "natural" mechanism I know of, but I 
prefer it because it seems to have the highest repeatability in revealing a 
device's vulnerability.

-Brent, "If I can't be 'right', I at least want to be consistent about it"

On 3/6/2023 6:40 PM, doug emcesd.com wrote:

Hi John and Chas,



I and others presented the strong evidence in the late 1990s of problems, 
including irreproducible results, and I see the results of these problems all 
the time.

  1.  Many products fail because of E-field emissions from the simulators, 
which is not controlled in the standard unless recently revised. This needs to 
be done. I have seen many products that fail by emissions. The emissions from 
many simulators are far worse (10x or more) than any natural ESD event. There 
is at least one simulator that has an emissions profile similar to a real ESD 
event, the rest are over testing in a way that does not add value as it does 
not correspond to what can actually happen.
  2.  To get reproduceable results between simulators (which is a BIG problem) 
a max di/dt specification needs to be added to the standard as I and others 
proposed in the 1990s. Without this, the standard is fatally flawed and leads 
to random results between simulators. I and others run into this all the time. 
I can tell you which brands will fail a good product that actually should pass, 
this from the large amount of data I have generated at considerable expense to 
myself. This data is presented in some of my classes.
  3.  Just because one does not see field problems in the field (I do see such 
problems quite a bit) does not mean the standard is good. When a test is used 
that does not come remotely close to a real possible event (such asa  20 kV 
contact discharge used in some industries), it increases costs for everyone for 
no purpose.



I have tons of data to support my points, some generated for the IEC in the 
1990s, which should be available and more modern and voluminous data I 
generated in the last year or so at my own personal expense for inclusion in 
seminars. My personal experience also shows that agrees with my data.



I am very familiar with Michael King’s contributions which were very 
significant but limited by the instrumentation available at the time. But even 
in the 1990s, the data clearly showed some changes to IEC 61000-4-2 were 
needed. In looking through my more recent data, there are patterns that show 
some interesting conclusions on ESD testing. I took the data in a way that 
exposed them, which we did not do in the 1990s because we did not know back 
then.



I have helped my clients pass quite a few ESD and EMC tests by taking advantage 
of problems with the standards. Passing with no changes is good. They still 
officially passed by accredited labs and procedures but with no changes or 
money spent against an original fail to get quickly to market.



Doug

[cid:part1.OeU0Kvx0.DbFKJXkb@ix.netcom.com]



From: Chas Grasso <mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:02
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts



Good points John.



On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 7:58 AM John Woodgate 
mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> wrote:

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
j...@woodjohn.uk<mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>





There are two good points about 61-4-2:the test results are repeatable and 
products that pass the tests rarely suffer from ESD failures in the field. But 
there are, even so, unresolved issues and doubts about the relations between 
the tests and actual ESD events. Because the present standard 'works', strong 
evidence would be required to support a proposal for change, and that is not 
forthcoming.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.woodjohn.uk=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=rpPAb2eJTrWbEN526jRAWfZ3KRUZLG3E9AyCvM8yX5I=ZNZiOeLiHc9pOq1APn37fQTPxLbUEMXhaIsJbjTjCAc=>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi 

Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[Brent DeWitt]

I'll jump in quickly to state my opinion:

Contact discharge does not represent any "natural" mechanism I know of, 
but I prefer it because it seems to have the highest repeatability in 
revealing a device's vulnerability.


-Brent, "If I can't be 'right', I at least want to be consistent about it"

On 3/6/2023 6:40 PM, doug emcesd.com wrote:


Hi John and Chas,

I and others presented the strong evidence in the late 1990s of 
problems, including irreproducible results, and I see the results of 
these problems all the time.


 1. Many products fail because of E-field emissions from the
simulators, which is not controlled in the standard unless
recently revised. This needs to be done. I have seen many products
that fail by emissions. The emissions from many simulators are far
worse (10x or more) than any natural ESD event. There is at least
one simulator that has an emissions profile similar to a real ESD
event, the rest are over testing in a way that does not add value
as it does not correspond to what can actually happen.
 2. To get reproduceable results between simulators (which is a BIG
problem) a max di/dt specification needs to be added to the
standard as I and others proposed in the 1990s. Without this, the
standard is fatally flawed and leads to random results between
simulators. I and others run into this all the time. I can tell
you which brands will fail a good product that actually should
pass, this from the large amount of data I have generated at
considerable expense to myself. This data is presented in some of
my classes.
 3. Just because one does not see field problems in the field (I do
see such problems quite a bit) does not mean the standard is good.
*When a test is used that does not come remotely close to a real
possible event (such asa  20 kV contact discharge used in some
industries), it increases costs for everyone for no purpose.*

I have tons of data to support my points, some generated for the IEC 
in the 1990s, which should be available and more modern and voluminous 
data I generated in the last year or so at my own personal expense for 
inclusion in seminars. My personal experience also shows that agrees 
with my data.


I am very familiar with Michael King’s contributions which were very 
significant but limited by the instrumentation available at the time. 
But even in the 1990s, the data clearly showed some changes to IEC 
61000-4-2 were needed. In looking through my more recent data, there 
are patterns that show some interesting conclusions on ESD testing. I 
took the data in a way that exposed them, which we did not do in the 
1990s because we did not know back then.


I have helped my clients pass quite a few ESD and EMC tests by taking 
advantage of problems with the standards. Passing with no changes is 
good. They still officially passed by accredited labs and procedures 
but with no changes or money spent against an original fail to get 
quickly to market.


Doug

*From:* Chas Grasso 
*Sent:* Monday, March 6, 2023 7:02
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

Good points John.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 7:58 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

* This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
j...@woodjohn.uk ***



There are two good points about 61-4-2:the test results are
repeatable and products that pass the tests rarely suffer from ESD
failures in the field. But there are, even so, unresolved issues
and doubts about the relations between the tests and actual ESD
events. Because the present standard 'works', strong evidence
would be required to support a proposal for change, and that is
not forthcoming.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.woodjohn.uk=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=rpPAb2eJTrWbEN526jRAWfZ3KRUZLG3E9AyCvM8yX5I=ZNZiOeLiHc9pOq1APn37fQTPxLbUEMXhaIsJbjTjCAc=>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I
understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)

On 2023-03-06 14:48, Chas Grasso wrote:

Don't forget the seminal research done by WMKing on this
topic. He was I believe the first to measure the fast response
of an ESD event through a metal intervening object. Also, it
is understood that the ESD test was a consensus output in an
attempt to provide repeatability within test houses. King and
Hish also produced an ESD generator that accurately replicated
the research.

The current ESD test is a committee consensus output which
tried very hard to

Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[Chas Grasso]

Good points John.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 7:58 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: j...@woodjohn.uk
>  *
> --
>
> There are two good points about 61-4-2:the test results are repeatable
> and products that pass the tests rarely suffer from ESD failures in the
> field. But there are, even so, unresolved issues and doubts about the
> relations between the tests and actual ESD events. Because the present
> standard 'works', strong evidence would be required to support a proposal
> for change, and that is not forthcoming.
>
> ==
> Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> www.woodjohn.uk
> 
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi
> (340 - 245 BC)
>
>
> On 2023-03-06 14:48, Chas Grasso wrote:
>
> Don't forget the seminal research done by WMKing on this topic. He was I
> believe the first to measure the fast response of an ESD event through a
> metal intervening object. Also, it is understood that the ESD test was a
> consensus output in an attempt to provide repeatability within test houses.
> King and Hish also produced an ESD generator that accurately replicated the
> research.
>
> The current ESD test is a committee consensus output which tried very hard
> to produce a test that could be consistent and repeatable, while at
> the same time be as close as possible to the actual event.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 1:42 AM John Woodgate  wrote:
>
>> *  This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
>> j...@woodjohn.uk  *
>> --
>>
>> Yes, 61000-4-2- is not very good, but while you are reluctant to share
>> your knowledge with the committee, it is unlikely that anything will happen.
>>
>> ==
>> Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
>> www.woodjohn.uk
>> 
>> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>>
>> I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand.
>> Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)
>>
>>
>> On 2023-03-06 04:14, doug emcesd.com
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you on ESD that have
>> comes out of my private research into the field in recent years.
>>
>>1. A 2kV air discharge can be much more likely to cause equipment
>>malfunction than any other discharge of any voltage.
>>2. There is no natural ESD event comparable to a 15-20+ kV contact
>>discharge so why test for it? That is designing for something that is
>>extremely unlikely at best.
>>3. The IEC61000-4-2 does not very well model real ESD events at all.
>>One example, my hand metal discharge at 4 kV results a current spike at 
>> the
>>start of the discharge that is more than twice as high as the standard
>>specifies! This is very repeatable.
>>
>>
>> The above is just a sample of the research I have generated over the
>> years. Seems like IEC 61000-4-2 needs an urgent overhaul as I believe
>> engineers get a false sense of security that passing the test means
>> reliable field performance, not even close!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Doug Smith
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> IPhone: 408-858-4528
>> Office: 702-570-6108
>> Email: d...@dsmith.org
>> Website: http://dsmith.org
>> 
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
>> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>> 
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> 
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe)
>> 
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>> 
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Mike Cantwell 
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher 
>> David Heald 
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>> 
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>> emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>> 
>>
>> Website: 

Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[John Woodgate]

There are two good points about 61-4-2:the test results are 
repeatable and products that pass the tests rarely suffer from ESD 
failures in the field. But there are, even so, unresolved issues and 
doubts about the relations between the tests and actual ESD events. 
Because the present standard 'works', strong evidence would be required 
to support a proposal for change, and that is not forthcoming.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-03-06 14:48, Chas Grasso wrote:
Don't forget the seminal research done by WMKing on this topic. He was 
I believe the first to measure the fast response of an ESD event 
through a metal intervening object. Also, it is understood that the 
ESD test was a consensus output in an attempt to provide repeatability 
within test houses. King and Hish also produced an ESD generator that 
accurately replicated the research.


The current ESD test is a committee consensus output which tried very 
hard to produce a test that could be consistent and repeatable, while 
at the same time be as close as possible to the actual event.





On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 1:42 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

*

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
j...@woodjohn.uk

*


Yes, 61000-4-2- is not very good, but while you are reluctant to
share your knowledge with the committee, it is unlikely that
anything will happen.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I
understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)


On 2023-03-06 04:14, doug emcesd.com  wrote:

Hi All,

I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you on ESD that
have comes out of my private research into the field in recent years.

 1. A 2kV air discharge can be much more likely to cause
equipment malfunction than any other discharge of any voltage.
 2. There is no natural ESD event comparable to a 15-20+ kV
contact discharge so why test for it? That is designing for
something that is extremely unlikely at best.
 3. The IEC61000-4-2 does not very well model real ESD events at
all. One example, my hand metal discharge at 4 kV results a
current spike at the start of the discharge that is more than
twice as high as the standard specifies! This is very repeatable.


The above is just a sample of the research I have generated over
the years. Seems like IEC 61000-4-2 needs an urgent overhaul as I
believe engineers get a false sense of security that passing the
test means reliable field performance, not even close!




Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send
your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how
to unsubscribe) 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David 

Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[Chas Grasso]

Don't forget the seminal research done by WMKing on this topic. He was I
believe the first to measure the fast response of an ESD event through a
metal intervening object. Also, it is understood that the ESD test was a
consensus output in an attempt to provide repeatability within test houses.
King and Hish also produced an ESD generator that accurately replicated the
research.

The current ESD test is a committee consensus output which tried very hard
to produce a test that could be consistent and repeatable, while at
the same time be as close as possible to the actual event.




On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 1:42 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: j...@woodjohn.uk
>  *
> --
>
> Yes, 61000-4-2- is not very good, but while you are reluctant to share
> your knowledge with the committee, it is unlikely that anything will happen.
>
> ==
> Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> www.woodjohn.uk
> 
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi
> (340 - 245 BC)
>
>
> On 2023-03-06 04:14, doug emcesd.com wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you on ESD that have
> comes out of my private research into the field in recent years.
>
>1. A 2kV air discharge can be much more likely to cause equipment
>malfunction than any other discharge of any voltage.
>2. There is no natural ESD event comparable to a 15-20+ kV contact
>discharge so why test for it? That is designing for something that is
>extremely unlikely at best.
>3. The IEC61000-4-2 does not very well model real ESD events at all.
>One example, my hand metal discharge at 4 kV results a current spike at the
>start of the discharge that is more than twice as high as the standard
>specifies! This is very repeatable.
>
>
> The above is just a sample of the research I have generated over the
> years. Seems like IEC 61000-4-2 needs an urgent overhaul as I believe
> engineers get a false sense of security that passing the test means
> reliable field performance, not even close!
>
>
>
>
> Doug Smith
> Sent from my iPhone
> IPhone: 408-858-4528
> Office: 702-570-6108
> Email: d...@dsmith.org
> Website: http://dsmith.org
> 
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> 
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> 
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> 
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> 
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)

Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[John Woodgate]

Yes, 61000-4-2- is not very good, but while you are reluctant to share 
your knowledge with the committee, it is unlikely that anything will happen.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-03-06 04:14, doug emcesd.com wrote:

Hi All,

I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you on ESD that have 
comes out of my private research into the field in recent years.


 1. A 2kV air discharge can be much more likely to cause equipment
malfunction than any other discharge of any voltage.
 2. There is no natural ESD event comparable to a 15-20+ kV contact
discharge so why test for it? That is designing for something that
is extremely unlikely at best.
 3. The IEC61000-4-2 does not very well model real ESD events at all.
One example, my hand metal discharge at 4 kV results a current
spike at the start of the discharge that is more than twice as
high as the standard specifies! This is very repeatable.


The above is just a sample of the research I have generated over the 
years. Seems like IEC 61000-4-2 needs an urgent overhaul as I believe 
engineers get a false sense of security that passing the test means 
reliable field performance, not even close!





Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[doug emcesd.com]

Hi All,

I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you on ESD that have comes out 
of my private research into the field in recent years.

  1.  A 2kV air discharge can be much more likely to cause equipment 
malfunction than any other discharge of any voltage.
  2.  There is no natural ESD event comparable to a 15-20+ kV contact discharge 
so why test for it? That is designing for something that is extremely unlikely 
at best.
  3.  The IEC61000-4-2 does not very well model real ESD events at all. One 
example, my hand metal discharge at 4 kV results a current spike at the start 
of the discharge that is more than twice as high as the standard specifies! 
This is very repeatable.

The above is just a sample of the research I have generated over the years. 
Seems like IEC 61000-4-2 needs an urgent overhaul as I believe engineers get a 
false sense of security that passing the test means reliable field performance, 
not even close!




Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1